One of the developing branches of psychology is the study of happiness: positive psychology. Among the many interesting finds of those in the positive psychology realm is the idea that those who perceive an internal locus of control tend to have more life satisfaction and happiness than those perceive an external locus of control (Verme, 2009). But can this cross over into the workplace? One Entrepreneur, Tony Hsieh (whom I probably exhausted last semester as well) is betting on it. Hsieh’s (2010) theory is that if you build ways for employees to take control over their career futures into organizational design, one lucky by-product is that these employees will be happier.
Zappos does this through a rigorous career development process, whereby employees can choose their career, enlist in training programs that serve as prerequisites for those positions, and be assured that the will eventually move along the career path they desire. In essence, Zappos created a structure that is designed to keep employees in control of their careers. Interestingly enough this structure demands a large ladder-like organization; the very kind Handy (1998) speaks out against. Handy argues that such a structure is ineffective, yet the example of Zappos provides quite a counterpoint.
This begs the questions: can you design happiness? At what cost?
Verme, P. (2009). Happiness, freedom and control. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71(2), 146-161.
Handy, C. (1998). The age of unreason. Boston: The Harvard Business School Press.
Hsieh, T. (2010). Delivering happiness: A path to profits, passion and purpose. New York: Business Plus.
I love LOC, David. But keep in mind that LOC is a personality trait, which means it is pretty much stable. Some folks have high LOC, others low LOC. Your example of what Zappos is doing will NOT change the LOC of any individual. But it will allow those with a high LOC to thrive. You can’t make someone high LOC, you have to hire and promote for that.
Great point. I think the aim of Zappos is to find those with a high LOC and create an environment that caters to them, helping those with low LOC find success elsewhere.
Your post also illustrates that org design is much MORE than structure (i.e., the Vertical Ladder itself is not right or wrong–depends on expectations, support, rewards for growth, etc.). Many a “pay for development” initiative has failed because COMPLETING training does not add value. You have to make sure that the proposition to me as a self-guided professional requires that I demonstrate an ablility to create greater value before earning more pay and bigger titles. Easier in smaller, nimble companies, but don’t mean to take anything away from achievement with this model at Zappos!
That’s a good point. On some ways, I wonder if the pay for training model at Zappos brings value because of the way it increases engagement. Certainly the training is relevant to the job, but I’m unsure of whether there is a system to monitor the application of said training. Still, if the slight pay increase for the model increases engagement…it may be worth it. Thanks for stopping by!